s.9.(1)(a) the D must enter with intent to commit one of the ulterior offences - its been clarified that a condition intent is enough - AG ref No1&2 of 1979

Andrew Ashworth (2002) has carried out a study of how the law on robbery is in working practice. He observes that the offence of robbery is extremely broad source 1, lines 23, 24.- Discuss this

Broad - The word force

Broad - The word appropriation

Broad - The change in when force can be used

Narrow- Robinson

Reform

The word force

Has been interpreted very widely wasn't parliament intention that the word should have such a broad meaning - Source 1, lines 6-8 and the whole of source 2 - Dawson and James

Extended in Clouden 1987 to include the use of force on property held by the V

Unfair to treat armed robbers and street robbers who use a minimum of force in the same way

But provides an effective detterent and persevers incentive - having such a broad offence may actually encourage people to commit more serious forms of robbery because they have the same maximum sentence in each case.

The word appropriation

Has also been interpreted very widely

Appropriation is defined in s.3 of the Theft Act 1968 as 'any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation'

Arguably parliament meant that all the rights of ownership must be assumed by the defendant but that wasn't the approach of the courts

Morris 1983 - it was held by the HofL that assuming a right of ownership was enough

Makes it easier to convict people of robbery - Corcaran v Anderton 1980 - The D tugged at V's bag but the bag was dropped and the Ds ran away with out it - following decision in Morris offence of robbery was complete at this point.

Arguable should this not have been an attempted robbery and not the full offence because the V didnt suffer any loss of property - fair labeling issue?

Change in when force can be used.

In s.8 of the Theft Act it says that the force for robbery must be sued ‘at or immediately before’ the theft, source 1 lines 1-4.

This created an obvious loop hole - on a literal reading clearly excluding force being used after theft had happened - Hale source 3 lines 1-7.

The court invented the concept if the ‘continuing appropriation’ to solve problem seen in source 3 lines 26,27.

The appropriation is continued for as long as the D’s are ‘on the job’ and it’s up to the jury to decide when it ends.

Critisms of the change in force.

This protects the public by catching people who are essentially committing robbery but it’s bad because it make it unclear when the offence ends shown in Atakpu and Abrahams.

We now have two different terms of appropriation, one for theft and one for robbery which complicates the law.

Robinson

Narrows the offence of robbery in which the defendant was acquitted of robbery despite using force.

This was because it was held that the D hadn’t been dishonest which leaves a lacuna in the law.

As it leaves people vulnerable to offenders who take property by force but without the Means Rea for theft for example bailiffs and unscrupulous borrowers of property.

Reform

To prevent this shouldn’t we have two separate offences of robbery.

One triable either way offence for cases like Dawson and James and one reserved serious cases of armed robbery for a separate indictable category of offence triable only in crown courts shown in Stanischewski